Daniel Penny is a hero

[Ouroboros]

What testimony do you imagine will exonerate Penny?

Just what the 60-year old woman on that train said; they were in fear for their lives.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Just what the 60-year old woman on that train said; they were in fear for their lives.

If that was true around here, there would be a lot of people due a death sentence. We have our fair share of homeless that will scream at people but never actually act on the words they spew. Is it an annoyance walking downtown? Sure. Has one of those homeless people ever made me fear for my life while doing it? Nope. I worry more about the super tough guys who open carry so that they can feel better about themselves snapping and doing something that could actually lead to me losing my life.

I don't believe for a minute that they actually feared for thier lives from the unarmed homeless guy. He had been going on for some time. The fair assumption is that if he was going to attack someone, he would have actually done it. Hell, from the time he made his "threat" to when Penny "subdued" him was a long enough period for any rational person to figure out he wasn't actually going to attack anyone. That alone takes away the IMMINENT threat that needs to be present to justify what happened.

Three men held down one man, and one of those men applied a choke hold that eventually killed that man. Was it premeditated? Of course not....but it doesn't have to be in order for a crime to be charged and consequences to be paid.

 

[j brown's body]

Just what the 60-year old woman on that train said; they were in fear for their lives.

Does that really justify homicide as a first response?

 

[poppopfox]

You asked for a philosophical statement about the difference between truth and falsity,

The bolded is not what I asked for. Are you deliberately avoiding supporting your initial claim?

and when you're given a response, you run away, wagging your tail behind you. Just like every Mad Lib I've ever debated here.

Your "response" was to move the goalpost and divert from supporting your claim, which you obviously cannot do as evidenced by your juvenile attempt at ridicule instead.

Also, I have seen no evidence that you have the fundamental skills required to debate. As to the mad lib remark, you might like this site - Online Mad Libs For Kids. Enjoy your day.

 

[j brown's body]

Does that really justify homicide as a first response?

Death becomes them.

 

[Cardinal]

Just what the 60-year old woman on that train said; they were in fear for their lives.

That doesn’t change the central fact, which is that penny kept nealy in a chokehold for 50 seconds after he went limp.

 

[Cardinal]

You claimed that "what Neely did do wasn't so bad."

Chucking garbage at people is less bad than pushing somebody onto the subway tracks, would you agree?

You have zero knowledge that he would not have acted in just as bad a manner as in the previous incident, had he not been restrained in a timely fashion.

Just out of curiosity, how would Nealy have pushed the passengers onto the tracks from inside the subway car?

The press brainwashed many people, possibly including you, as to Neely being a harmless "Michael Jackson impersonator." But despite their BS, there are strong indications that Neely gave up the Jackson gig long ago and just became a mean guy.

Did a 2013 Reddit Post Warn About Subway Chokehold Victim Jordan Neely?

"Used to be all cool, dancing to MJ in the subway train, but as of late he's become a maniac," a Redditor posted.

www.snopes.com

Snopes rated the ID of this unnamed individual with Neely as "true."

 

[maxparrish]

If that was true around here, there would be a lot of people due a death sentence. We have our fair share of homeless that will scream at people but never actually act on the words they spew. Is it an annoyance walking downtown? Sure. Has one of those homeless people ever made me fear for my life while doing it? Nope. I worry more about the super tough guys who open carry so that they can feel better about themselves snapping and doing something that could actually lead to me losing my life.

I don't believe for a minute that they actually feared for thier lives from the unarmed homeless guy. He had been going on for some time. The fair assumption is that if he was going to attack someone, he would have actually done it. Hell, from the time he made his "threat" to when Penny "subdued" him was a long enough period for any rational person to figure out he wasn't actually going to attack anyone. That alone takes away the IMMINENT threat that needs to be present to justify what happened.

Three men held down one man, and one of those men applied a choke hold that eventually killed that man. Was it premeditated? Of course not....but it doesn't have to be in order for a crime to be charged and consequences to be paid.

The incident occurred on May 1st. On May 3rd the medical examiner rule it a homicide. Since then I have seen no actual report or heard of any physical evidence of "death from compression of the neck.

Those subjected to severe strangulation usually leave markers; eg blood pooled in blood shot eyes and inflamed redness under the eyes. So where are the photos of such????

Of course, Bragg is depending on the propogandists and money sniffers to add to the narrative, to create an overwhelming public narrative of guilt over the many months or even years before trial, hoping that there won't be a person left in NY city's jury pool that is unbaised. Indeed, even Neely's mostly indifferent and absent "family" has appeared to join in the the narrative in hopes of getting a windfall of cash from potential suits.

Still, so far there is little or no evidence that Neely died due strangulation. So until that happens, he is not guilty.

 

[Ouroboros]

If that was true around here, there would be a lot of people due a death sentence. We have our fair share of homeless that will scream at people but never actually act on the words they spew. Is it an annoyance walking downtown? Sure. Has one of those homeless people ever made me fear for my life while doing it? Nope. I worry more about the super tough guys who open carry so that they can feel better about themselves snapping and doing something that could actually lead to me losing my life.

I don't believe for a minute that they actually feared for thier lives from the unarmed homeless guy. He had been going on for some time. The fair assumption is that if he was going to attack someone, he would have actually done it. Hell, from the time he made his "threat" to when Penny "subdued" him was a long enough period for any rational person to figure out he wasn't actually going to attack anyone. That alone takes away the IMMINENT threat that needs to be present to justify what happened.

Three men held down one man, and one of those men applied a choke hold that eventually killed that man. Was it premeditated? Of course not....but it doesn't have to be in order for a crime to be charged and consequences to be paid.

You want to assume Neely wouldn't have done anything, nothing can stop you. How you can do so, though, knowing his record now, knowing that he had already committed violence, makes little sense. I get that a lot of Neely sympathizers have argued that no one on the train could know that Neely had a record of violence (though it's not utterly impossible that some persons might have known his rep, since he'd been a fixture in the area for some ten years). You have claimed that this lack of omniscience about Neely's past means that he could not have been properly perceived as an "imminent threat." I repeat that you're giving Neely the benefit of the doubt purely as an exercise, and not in response to what he did and said at the time. You think the elapse of time indicates lack of true malice; I say that some hostile agents need time to work themselves to commit an act of violence, and may do so with theoretically harmless gestures like tossing trash at people.

I suppose the prosecution will use something like your variation on the "prudent man" argument.

 

[Ouroboros]

Does that really justify homicide as a first response?

It would not justify intentional homicide, but accidental homicide in the protection of oneself or others, yes.

 

[Ouroboros]

The bolded is not what I asked for. Are you deliberately avoiding supporting your initial claim?

Your "response" was to move the goalpost and divert from supporting your claim, which you obviously cannot do as evidenced by your juvenile attempt at ridicule instead.

Also, I have seen no evidence that you have the fundamental skills required to debate. As to the mad lib remark, you might like this site - Online Mad Libs For Kids. Enjoy your day.

Lemme know when you get tired of blowing smoke and want to admit that I did in fact answer your question. It's not my fault you don't know that the discrimination of truth and falsehood is one of the hallmarks of philosophical inquiry, and that you embarrassed yourself by not knowing that. But if you study hard, maybe you can work your way up to making a relevant post someday.

 

[Ouroboros]

That doesn’t change the central fact, which is that penny kept nealy in a chokehold for 50 seconds after he went limp.

It's also a fact, as has been pointed out already, that sometimes assailants go limp to fake out their attackers. But like most posters on your side, you've ruled out the strong possibility that Neely might have injured someone if he'd been insufficiently restrained. That just can't happen in your world.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

From my perspective, this incident and the way both sides are digging in illustrates a bigger problem in this country between the left and the right.

I don't see any indication of race being a factor in this but what I saw on the video was excessive force being applied.

I don't see anything that indicates Penny was trying to kill the guy and he was within his right to subdue the threat Neely presented himself as. However the hold was maintained unnecessarily long and it resulted in Neelys death. The DA is absolutely correct to charge Penny.

It should absolutely be left to a jury to decide if it was a crime or an act of self-defense.

What's disheartening is that due to the partisan divide in this country I doubt the guy can get a fair trial and depending on the judge a fair trial and/or sentence.

Let's call a spade a spade. Neely was a violent threat. Penny had every right to neutralize the threat. Once the guy was subdued he should of released his choke hold so Neely could breathe.

And how about using your phone to call 911 instead of videoing the incident. People are morons. People are more interested in posting something on social media than they are in helping a person in trouble out.

I can see a parallel to the Toronto police officer who was charged with, and convicted of, "attempted murder" when he discharged the entire contents of the magazine of his service pistol into a violent perpetrator.

In that case, the police officer fired several times, paused briefly, then resumed firing. The rounds from the first set of discharges had actually killed the perpetrator and it was common ground that all of the rounds fired by the police officer were intended to be lethal. However since the police officer had killed the perpetrator he no longer had any legal justification to continue firing and the jury found him guilty of "attempted murder" (because he WAS attempting to kill the perpetrator with both sets of shots) BUT ONLY with respect to the second set of shots.

 

[Ouroboros]

Chucking garbage at people is less bad than pushing somebody onto the subway tracks, would you agree?



Just out of curiosity, how would Nealy have pushed the passengers onto the tracks from inside the subway car?

Another straw man on your part. I brought up the random subway assaults because they show that there are consequences of constantly allowing the psychologically impaired to wander the streets until they build up enough resentment to attack people. Jeez, Neely even knew that he was willing to go to jail again. He knew there would be consequences if he attacked someone, and he explicitly said he did not care. That justifies preventive action, and accidental death is the fault of the person who provoked the action.

 

[poppopfox]

Lemme know when you get tired of blowing smoke and want to admit that I did in fact answer your question.

Childish, and not the truth. Strike one.

It's not my fault you don't know that the discrimination of truth and falsehood is one of the hallmarks of philosophical inquiry, and that you embarrassed yourself by not knowing that.

Juvenile skat tossing. Strike two.

But if you study hard, maybe you can work your way up to making a relevant post someday.

 

[Ouroboros]

Childish, and not the truth. Strike one.

Juvenile skat tossing. Strike two.


View attachment 67449862

You've still got nothing but lame drivel and that will never change. But troll as much as you like, maybe your negative example will convince one or two posters of the mental dangers of being a Mad Lib.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

It's also a fact, as has been pointed out already, that sometimes assailants go limp to fake out their attackers. But like most posters on your side, you've ruled out the strong possibility that Neely might have injured someone if he'd been insufficiently restrained. That just can't happen in your world.

You don't get to kill someone just to avoid being faked out. Come on, man....be better.

By your rationale, simply choosing to involve oneself in an altercation becomes license to kill, as once involved, there is no way short of that to ensure that the person you felt the need to restrain can't cause harm to you or someone else. That's just plain stupid.

 

[zincwarrior]

Update: Perry is going to testify before the grand jury. Thats interesting. In many/most jurisdictions, only the prosecutor presents evidence. This is risky but interesting.

Daniel Penny Plans to Testify Before Grand Jury in Subway Chokehold Case

Daniel Penny, charged with manslaughter in the killing of Jordan Neely, is expected to argue that he acted in self-defense.

www.nytimes.com

The man charged with killing a homeless subway passenger in a minutes-long chokehold that was captured on video plans to tell his story before a grand jury in an attempt to avoid a manslaughter indictment, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

The man, Daniel Penny, would testify in his own defense next month. The move appears to reflect his lawyers’ confidence that Mr. Penny, a Marine veteran, can shape the way jurors view the highly publicized and politically charged episode on an F train earlier this month.
The grand jury, impaneled by the Manhattan district attorney’s office, can vote to indict Mr. Penny, 24, in the death of Jordan Neely, a 30-year-old former Michael Jackson impersonator who relatives said had long been battling severe mental illness.
The case’s racial dynamics — Mr. Neely was Black and Mr. Penny is white — and the decision by the police not to immediately arrest Mr. Penny made it an instant flashpoint in New York City and beyond.

 

[Cardinal]

It's also a fact, as has been pointed out already, that sometimes assailants go limp to fake out their attackers. But like most posters on your side, you've ruled out the strong possibility that Neely might have injured someone if he'd been insufficiently restrained. That just can't happen in your world.

But he was restrained, he did go limp, he wasn't faking it, and no, he didn't get back up to attack the other people.

That's why when you put someone in a choke hold, you're rolling the dice. If he doesn't die, great. But if he dies, so sorry, go directly to jail, do not collect $200.

 

[Lursa]

But he was restrained, he did go limp, he wasn't faking it, and no, he didn't get back up to attack the other people.

That's why when you put someone in a choke hold, you're rolling the dice. If he doesn't die, great. But if he dies, so sorry, go directly to jail, do not collect $200.

It's a stupid, failed premise. The purpose of the chokehold is to get the subject to stop resisting. (To go limp) So they can safely be taken into custody.

Then the appropriate authority applying it is supposed to cuff or otherwise ensure restraint and stop the pressure. In this case, I havent heard if Petty had formal training for the chokehold maneuver but later he had other men helping him restrain him as well.

If he never planned to release the pressure when resistance stopped (for fear of a fake response? ) then the result would have to lead to death. Er, what was his plan? Was he poorly trained or just winging it?

 

[Cardinal]

It's a stupid, failed premise. The purpose of the chokehold is to get the subject to stop resisting. (To go limp) So they can safely be taken into custody.

Then the appropriate authority applying it is supposed to cuff or otherwise ensure restraint and stop the pressure. In this case, I havent heard if Petty had formal training for the chokehold maneuver but later he had other men helping him restrain him as well.

If he never planned to release the pressure when resistance stopped (for fear of a fake response? ) then the result would have to lead to death. Er, what was his plan? Was he poorly trained or just winging it?

That’s a very good point. Using ouroboros’s logic, you must reasonably keep the person in a chokehold until death.

 

[Visbek]

Update: Perry is going to testify before the grand jury.

Wow. Penny apparently hired some incredibly stupid lawyers.

First, they let him give an interview. That was bad enough. Now, they're having him testify, under oath, in court?

The standard for a grand jury indict is very low. All that has to happen is a majority of the jurors need to find that there's probable cause to believe that he acted recklessly. That will not be difficult at all.

Not only does it give the prosecutors a huge opportunity to question him under oath, they can use those answers in a subsequent trial, and nail him on any inconsistencies or problems in his testimony. Egads.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

That’s a very good point. Using ouroboros’s logic, you must reasonably keep the person in a chokehold until death.

See my response in post #392.

 

[Ouroboros]

You don't get to kill someone just to avoid being faked out. Come on, man....be better.

By your rationale, simply choosing to involve oneself in an altercation becomes license to kill, as once involved, there is no way short of that to ensure that the person you felt the need to restrain can't cause harm to you or someone else. That's just plain stupid.

Not stupid in the least. You're indulging in a false "what happens if everyone does it" narrative. Every case must be judged on its own merits.

 

[Ouroboros]

But he was restrained, he did go limp, he wasn't faking it, and no, he didn't get back up to attack the other people.

That's why when you put someone in a choke hold, you're rolling the dice. If he doesn't die, great. But if he dies, so sorry, go directly to jail, do not collect $200.

Again, Monday morning quarterbacking. If you'd been placed in the exact same circumstances, you would have found it impossible to be sure that your opponent had been rendered unconscious. You can claim that you'd never deign to use a chokehold, but you also could not be sure that Neely had no weapon save pieces of trash. You could have decided to confront him face to face, only to have a knife stuck in your ribs. That's no less "rolling the dice" than what Penny did.